Supreme Court· 6/13/1988

Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard

Citations

486 U.S. 517
108 S. Ct. 1945
100 L. Ed. 2d 517
1988 U.S. LEXIS 2587
56 U.S.L.W. 4545

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that a forum non conveniens motion “may be resolved on affidavits submitted by the parties”
conclusion to deny collateral order appeal \fortified by the availability of interlocutory review\ under Sec. 1292(b)
“Service of process merely requires that a defendant appear through an attorney and file an answer to the complaint to avoid default.”
“An order granting default judgment without any judgment entry on the issue of damages is no more than an interlocutory order . . . .”
immediate review of issues enmeshed in merits would waste judicial resources
“[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state 18 employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process 19 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is 20 available.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Marshall

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

445 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.